Is there any reason why Cisco doesn't keep ADE-OS more or less the same version across platforms?

[Nadav]

Hi everyone,

I'll try not to make this sound too much like a rant.

After installing ACS 5.8 and now Prime Collaboration Assurance 11.x, I can't help but notice the differences in ADE-OS versions and also basic capabilities. These programs were released within a month of one another. 

ACS allows for ntp authentication and snmp traps regarding the platform level, whereas Prime Collaboration doesn't. There are also other differences such as PCA not supporting ADE-OS level backups. 

Is it just a matter of priorities with the development teams? 

[Marvin Rhoads]

Given the size of Cisco and divergent priorities of the respective distinct business units' development activities, it's a wonder they even have a somewhat similar common underlying ADE-OS.

They definitely work according to their own priorities and I would be amazed if any business unit manager allowed lack of the "right" version of ADE-OS stand in the way of a product release.

[Nadav]

Oddly enough, it is due to their size and vast operational overhead that I'd expect them to strive for commonality with codebases and operating systems. It's only with IOS-XE 16 that there has been any plan of action to form a unified codebase across platforms. That thinking should be across all sectors and not just R&S.

If I buy the latest software for several of their products, and they operate under the same OS or within the same suite, there should be similar UX and functionality where possible.

[Marvin Rhoads]

In theory I'd agree. In practice I'd say look at the train wreck that's Converged Access. Two years in and the stability of that code remains a major roadblock to adoption.

That aside, the UX of the various Prime products has some commonality. Still though, a lot of it is window dressing and under the covers there's a lot of legacy from the products they all came from - look at the "lumos" directories in Prime Infrastructure and "cscopx" in Prime LMS as examples. To shut down PI for example, we still issue the command "ncs stop". The product hasn't been "ncs" for about 3-4 years.

[Nadav]

Absolutely right.

The amount of legacy code can cause the occasional cringe. It's the same for most of the collaboration suite, especially the references to Tandberg even though they bought them six years ago. 

IOS, IOS-XE, NX-OS, ASA-OS and IOS-XR are all being maintained for their respective platforms, each with different CLI behavior and syntax. Why not settle for the best received GUI/CLI and consolidate down the roadmap? IOS-XR has massive benefits CLI-wise and certain Cisco's competitors have been using a similar CLI architecture for over a decade.

I think they would be more in touch with user expectations and ideas if they would allow every member of the CSC to create an idea and have others vote on that idea. The Cisco customer connection programs don't seem as active as the CSC nor can they reach out to a large enough demographic to properly survey what needs to be changed and/or maintained.